Is a raw food diet better for weight loss?

March 16, 2017 Ashley 0 Comments

You may’ve heard of the “raw food movement” before.

And you may’ve heard the sound of a thousand eyeballs rolling in unison, too, when you did.

“So… Angela started me on this raw food diet. Says it’s healthier.”
“Yeah. My wife hates cooking too.”

But what exactly is a raw food diet?

And is it really better?

Essentially, the idea’s that you stick to nibbles of the un-scorched variety. From your strawberries to your celery, nothing gets cooked. And why? Well, its proponents claim that letting your oven burners hibernate for a bit does heaps for your health. The idea’s that the enzymes or nutrients you need get ruined when you nuke your food. Got arthritis? Migraines? Allergies? Ghosts? Well, those nomming on raw fodder promise that at least one – if not all – of your 99 problems’ll clear up the second you take the high temps out’ve meal prep.

Now, I dunno about you, but that bit wasn’t news. I’d heard it all before. And, I’d also heard the counter-arguments. (Like the idea that we don’t need those enzymes; they’re only there to help the plant itself grow.) But what I hadn’t heard was this tidbit I just caught wind of the other day. And that’s the claim that cooking can actually add calories to your food.

See, Harvard did this study with a bunch’ve rodents. First, they broke down the cell wall of starchy foods (by mechanical means). And, when they did, the calorie availability went up. However, all the snack mashing in the world didn’t hold a candle flame to taking a flame to the mouse meals. Because, once their subjects were sucking down cooked food, the scientists found themselves looking at some rotund rodents – even though the activity level was equal between each group.

So, then, what gives?

Why’m I still slender when a singed-food bender nearly defines my diet? Well, it’s anyone’s guess. But what makes sense is this four-fold explanache: First, you have to realize that the rats in question were ingesting unbalanced macros (no to mention as much’ve them as they desired). If your body’s already getting more calories than usual, and it’s only getting it from carbs, it’s going to hang onto those calories. And it’ll make you eat even more – hoping something more well-rounded is coming and that it’ll get all the other nutrients you need in the process. That’s not how humans eat. If we’re doing it right, we balance fats, proteins, and carbs. ‘

(You can strike this balance whether you add or subtract your stove…)

Secondly, hot meals don’t literally define my entire diet.

I do prefer my food nice ‘n hot. Sure. That said, even though I heat many of my meals, I still fit in innumerable unfettered edibles. (Raw carrots, broccoli, and plenty’ve plantlife sits in my fridge prison, waiting to be mercilessly masticated.) So, I’m still getting those good nutrients and filling up enough to not overdo my hot meals. (While, obvi, macro balancing.)

Third? I eschew sugar if it’s the refined kind (mostly; I’m no angel). That’s good for blood glucose levels and avoiding adipose accumulation. (Similarly, I avoid processed, hyperpalatable stuff that makes my mouth wanna keep eating when my viscera’s go the no vacancy sign up.) What’s that got to do with high calorie cooked food? Well, when you’re not adding excess calories (via foods like refined sugar, which warp your hormone levels, making weight loss an onerous process), those negligible extra calories in your cooked plant food don’t really matter too much.

And, finally, that mechanical element’s not an issue for me. The Harvard study said that flattening your food breaks down the walls until you up the number of calories your body’s gonna wanna grab onto. And, while the first thing that may come to your mind is that grinding your food’s not a common practice you have, I urge you to think again. Love mashed potatoes? Applesauce? Peanut butter? All that stuff’s crushed into the final palatable product you’re enjoying. Meanwhile, the plain taters, Plantar’s, or Golden Delishes would do your body better, in terms of your weight loss goals, than the steamrolled form of each. (Not to mention the added sugar typically pumped into the ground-up kind.)

So, is the caloric dip worth withdrawing, the warm, comforting heat from our meals? Not necessarily. As illustrated above, the big downfall, a lot’ve the time, is that people not on raw food diets only tend to err because they’ve got the option of processed food – which comes with refined sugars, hyperpalatable-make-you-crave-more salty flavorings, and high fat. Take that away from your non-raw options, and you’ll be fine. Plus, as a healthy and slender femme (who far from starves herself to get that way), I tend to do what works. And what’s worked for me’s been plant based balance. I do a bit of the un-heated eating, for sure. But another big bit of my nibbling proclivities consist of steamed veggies and the like, as well. So long as I strike that balance, chug water jugs, and avoid the cronuts my coworkers keep bringing into the break room, I’m better off than most with my weight. (And, yes, energy levels also.) Fifty-fifty fits my fitness needs beautifully. And, according to my fit-network, I’m in good company there. Thus, when it comes to these unfounded claims that vilify hot vittles, the unscorched form’s not bad. But cooked whole food’s are still pretty good for ya.

And totally undeserving of the raw deal they’re getting from raw foodists.